Review of Glenamuck Local Area Plan. Traffic Modelling Report

Review of Glenamuck Local Area Plan

Review of Glenamuck LAP DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET Client: Project Title: Document Title: Document No: This Document Comprises: Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council Review of Glenamuck Local Area Plan MDT0598RP001 DCS TOC Text List of Tables List of Figures No. of Appendices 1 1 106 - - 2 Rev. Status Author(s) Reviewed By Approved By Office of Origin Issue Date F01 Final Issue K. Dalton R. Harris R. Harris M. Noonan West Pier May 2013 rpsgroup.com/ireland

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1 CONTEXT... 1 1.2 APPROACH... 2 1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT... 2 2 SATURN MODEL... 3 2.1 SCOPE... 3 2.2 BASE YEAR MODEL DEVELOPMENT... 4 2.3 FUTURE YEAR NETWORKS... 10 3 DEMAND SPREADSHEET... 11 3.1 SCOPE... 11 3.2 LAND USE... 13 3.3 TRIP GENERATION RATES... 13 3.4 MODAL SPLIT... 15 3.5 FUTURE YEAR TRIP ENDS... 16 3.6 BACKGROUND GROWTH... 16 3.7 MODELLING EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENTS... 17 3.8 COMPARISON OF FUTURE GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS TO 2005 NTA MODEL... 19 4 FORECASTING SCENARIOS... 20 4.1 STRUCTURING THE ISSUE... 20 4.2 CORE SCENARIO... 20 4.3 HIGH TRAFFIC GROWTH SCENARIO... 20 5 SATURN MODEL RUNS - RESULTS... 21 5.1 CORE SCENARIO... 21 5.1.1 Option 0 - Do-Minimum... 21 5.1.2 Option 1 Current thinking for LAP area... 32 5.1.3 Option 2 - Cherrywood/Park Infrastructure... 43 5.1.4 Option 3 Test scope for reduction in standard... 53 5.1.5 Option 4 LAP Area Infrastructure... 65 5.2 HIGH TRAFFIC GROWTH SCENARIO... 75 5.3 SUMMARY... 83 5.4 SATURN MODEL RUNS CONCLUSION... 85 6 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS... 87 6.1 PREDICTED TRAFFIC FLOWS... 87 6.2 PROPOSED ROAD NETWORK... 87 6.3 LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS... 87 6.4 JUNCTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS... 91 6.4.1 Junction Modelling Software Used... 91 MDT0598RP001 i Rev F01

6.4.2 Junction 1 Enniskerry Road / GDDR... 92 6.4.3 Junction 2 GDDR / GLDR... 93 6.4.4 Junction 3 - Golf Lane Roundabout... 95 6.4.5 Junction 4 GLDR / Glenamuck Road Staggered Junction... 96 6.4.6 Junction 5 GLDR / Ballycorus Road... 99 6.5 SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS... 101 7 PUBLIC TRANSPORT & SLOW MODES... 102 7.1 OVERVIEW... 102 7.2 PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISION... 102 7.2.1 Junction Requirements... 102 7.2.2 Bus Lanes/Bus Priority... 102 7.3 PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLIST INFRASTRUCTURE... 103 8 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY... 104 8.1 LONG TERM FORECASTING... 104 8.2 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL (CORE) ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE... 104 8.3 OTHER KEY TRANSPORT AND ASSOCIATED ELEMENTS... 105 8.4 PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT... 105 8.5 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY... 105 APPENDIX A: PROPOSED JUNCTION LAYOUT DRAWINGS APPENDIX B: CORE INFRASTRUCTURE AND FUTURE NEEDS DRAWINGS MDT0598RP001 ii Rev F01

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 CONTEXT The existing Glenamuck Local Area Plan was published in 2007. It sets out a plan for major development within the Glenamuck/Kiltiernan area, served by a proposed new Glenamuck District Distributor Road (GDDR) and Glenamuck Link Distributer Road (GLDR). Traffic modelling work undertaken by the NTA in 2006 was used to inform the design of the GDDR/GLDR, and to demonstrate (as part of the LAP process) that this level of transport infrastructure provision is necessary and appropriate for the proposed quantum of development planned within the LAP area. The Glenamuck LAP is now due for statutory review. Given the significant changes that have occurred in Ireland over the last five years, DLRCC s transport planning section appointed RPS to develop a cost-effective method of updating the previous modelling work, in order to assess whether the existing Glenamuck LAP transportation infrastructure design remains appropriate. Many changes have taken place since the previous 2006 modelling work: Changes in the national and regional prospects for growth in demography, employment and income The collapse of the property market, which has been particularly pronounced with regard to apartments in high-density blocks. Significant rises in real fuel price, and uncertain prospects for further rises in future Completion of some major transport infrastructure projects (including M50 and the extension of the Green Line to Brides Glen) Substantial cuts to government programmes of future investment in transport Changes in proposed levels and timing of development in the surrounding areas of DLR Changes in proposed access arrangements for planned nearby development at Park and at Cherrywood A new direction for transport policy, typified by the Smarter Travel policy agenda, which seeks to limit car travel and encourage walking and cycling, and embodied in the draft 2030 vision strategy for the Greater Dublin Area Improvements to the NTA model from the 2001-based version used in the 2006 modelling work The 2011 Census, detailed results from which will be released over the course of 2012. Static or declining traffic levels (analysis of data from the NRA permanent traffic counter at Fassaroe suggests that traffic in the N11 corridor has been declining by around 1.75% per annum since early 2008) This is a time of considerable uncertainty; with new Census results in preparation and little available in the way of credible economic forecasts to indicate when the national economy will return to a pattern of sustainable growth. MDT0598Rp0001 1 F01

1.2 APPROACH In the light of this, the approach taken was to develop a sketchplan modelling tool that DLRCC can use through the LAP review process, to assess the sensitivity of projected levels of road congestion to various factors. The tool combined a highly localised SATURN model, covering the LAP area, with a spreadsheet to generate alternative demand matrices corresponding to: alternative planning inputs alternative levels of PT provision alternative assumptions on growth in background traffic. 1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT Section 2 of this report describes the development of the local SATURN model. Section 3 presents the calculations embodied in the demand spreadsheet. Section 4 sets out the forecasting scenarios used. Section 5 describes the future year traffic model runs that were undertaken to inform the LAP process. Section 6 describes the results of the static junction analysis Section 7 describes the public transport and slow mode recommendations from the study. Section 8 describes the proposed implementation plan for the transportation strategy MDT0598Rp0001 2 F01

2 SATURN MODEL 2.1 SCOPE The starting point for SATURN modelling was the local area highway model used in the 2006 NTA modelling work. The 2007 forecast was used as the basis for the new model. The model includes two user classes HCVs and light vehicles and covers the AM peak period 08:00-09:00. Scheduled bus services are separately coded into the model along fixed routes. The network was cordoned down to the area shown in Figure 2.1, so as to include the LAP area, the various M50/M11 junctions that traffic may use to access the LAP area, and the routes between the LAP area and these junctions. The model was extended slightly to the south-east, to include routes to and from the M11 via the Loughlinstown roundabout. Figure 2.1 Network Extent Base Year Model MDT0598Rp0001 3 F01

2.2 BASE YEAR MODEL DEVELOPMENT The network was updated to 2012, ensuring that the base year model corresponds with what is on the ground at present. In particular, work along the Ballyogan Road has resulted in a greater number of signalised junctions than had been foreseen in 2006, and the layout of the M50 Sandyford junction as built is not exactly as was modelled in 2006. Cherrywood access roads that are not yet built were removed from the base year network. The zoning system within the LAP area was revised in order to tie in more closely with the system of land parcels and land uses proposed within the LAP, and the proposed system of access roads by which new land use will connect to the road network. The zone south of Kiltiernan was split in order to better reflect traffic levels along the Ballycorus Road. For the base year model, it was necessary to connect each LAP zone to the existing road network, even where it is planned that the future connection will be made of via the proposed distributor road. Data from the NRA permanent traffic counter at Fassaroe was used to estimate a recent trend in traffic levels. Traffic in the area is estimated to have declined by around 6% between October 2009 and the nominal base of the model at May 2012. Figure 2.2 Recent Traffic Trend Monthly average traffic at Fassaroe ATC 80000 75000 70000 65000 AADT 60000 55000 50000 45000 40000 Jan-06 Mar-06 May-06 Jul-06 Sep-06 Nov-06 Jan-07 Mar-07 May-07 Jul-07 Sep-07 Nov-07 Jan-08 Mar-08 May-08 Jul-08 Sep-08 Nov-08 Jan-09 Mar-09 May-09 Jul-09 Sep-09 Nov-09 Jan-10 Mar-10 May-10 Jul-10 Sep-10 Nov-10 Jan-11 Mar-11 May-11 Jul-11 Sep-11 month Available count data dating from October 2009 was taken from modelling work for the Cherrywood SDZ. These counts were factored down to May 2012 traffic levels, and coded in to the SATURN model in the form of turning movements. Modelled base year trip-end totals for the zones representing the LAP area were taken from the demand spreadsheet. MDT0598Rp0001 4 F01

A matrix estimation procedure was used to generate a base year matrix that is as close as possible to the cordoned matrix from which the model started, whilst matching the count data acceptably closely and being consistent with the modelled trip-ends for the LAP area. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 list the counts used and demonstrate the level of fit to the count data for both user classes. The measure of fit used is a GEH statistic, which reflects both relative and absolute differences between modelled flows and count flows. NRA Project Appraisal Guidance suggests an acceptability threshold such that the GEH statistic should be less than 5 at more than 85% of sites. In the current model, the GEH statistic is less than 5 at 81 out of 82 count sites (99%) and is between 5 and 6 at the remaining site, indicating that the modelled flows are a very good match to the available data. Table 2.1 Fit to Count Data - Cars Count No. Nodes Estimated Flow Target Flow Difference % Difference GEH Statistic 1 5440 5311 5310 98.0 98.0 0.0-0.02 0.00 1.025 2 5440 5311 5446 18.0 18.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 4.220 3 5440 5311 5450 65.0 65.0 0.0-0.01 0.00 0.567 4 5450 5311 5440 10.7 10.7 0.0 0.01 0.00 0.637 5 5450 5311 5310 1407.6 1421.3 13.8 0.97 0.37 5.000 6 5450 5311 5446 464.8 464.9 0.1 0.02 0.00 3.190 7 5446 5311 5450 27.0 27.0 0.0-0.01 0.00 0.440 8 5446 5311 5440 0.6 8.0 7.4 92.25 3.55 5.000 9 5446 5311 5310 62.0 62.0 0.0-0.02 0.00 1.211 10 5310 5311 5446 241.8 241.3-0.5-0.21 0.03 0.725 11 5310 5311 5450 901.4 900.0-1.4-0.16 0.05 1.321 12 5310 5311 5440 17.1 17.0 0.0-0.21 0.01 0.944 13 5357 5029 9734 705.3 706.0 0.7 0.10 0.03 5.000 14 9738 5357 5358 265.1 265.1 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.304 15 9734 5029 5357 1897.8 1876.7-21.1-1.12 0.48 0.645 16 5311 5310 5309 336.1 335.8-0.3-0.09 0.02 0.899 17 5311 5310 5355 1231.5 1241.4 9.9 0.80 0.28 2.277 18 5355 5310 5311 967.8 968.0 0.2 0.02 0.01 0.924 19 5355 5310 5309 179.2 179.0-0.2-0.09 0.01 1.834 20 5309 5310 5355 388.5 389.5 1.0 0.26 0.05 5.000 21 5309 5310 5311 192.4 189.2-3.2-1.69 0.23 2.004 22 5353 5358 5357 705.3 706.0 0.7 0.10 0.03 1.194 23 5310 5309 5308 515.2 515.3 0.1 0.01 0.00 1.054 24 5357 5358 5308 580.9 578.7-2.2-0.38 0.09 1.012 25 5357 5358 5353 1508.4 1564.0 55.7 3.56 1.42 5.000 26 5354 5355 5059 148.0 148.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 2.900 XA MDT0598Rp0001 5 F01

Count No. Nodes Estimated Flow Target Flow Difference % Difference GEH Statistic 27 5354 5355 5310 258.0 258.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.492 28 5310 5355 5059 1488.5 1485.2-3.3-0.23 0.09 0.812 29 5310 5355 5356 131.5 131.6 0.1 0.10 0.01 0.384 30 5059 5355 5356 297.7 407.0 109.3 26.86 5.82 5.000 31 5059 5355 5310 889.0 889.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1.269 32 5317 9584 9581 70.1 41.2-28.9-70.11 3.87 0.200 33 5317 9584 9582 346.8 346.4-0.4-0.12 0.02 2.221 34 5317 9584 5378 75.2 74.7-0.5-0.68 0.06 1.877 35 5378 9584 5317 38.4 39.0 0.6 1.47 0.09 0.384 36 5378 9584 9581 119.2 121.0 1.8 1.47 0.16 1.167 37 5378 9584 9582 310.5 314.7 4.1 1.32 0.23 4.961 38 9583 9584 5378 81.5 81.0-0.6-0.71 0.06 4.009 39 9583 9584 5317 79.9 79.9 0.0-0.03 0.00 0.579 40 9583 9584 9582 355.0 354.5-0.5-0.14 0.03 0.811 41 9582 9584 5378 141.9 141.1-0.9-0.61 0.07 0.283 42 9582 9584 5317 152.0 107.1-44.9-41.98 3.95 0.200 43 9582 9584 9581 255.1 255.1 0.0-0.01 0.00 0.442 44 9581 9582 9763 29.1 29.1 0.0 0.01 0.00 0.357 45 9581 9582 5157 92.4 92.2-0.2-0.19 0.02 0.580 46 9581 9582 9584 116.6 116.3-0.3-0.28 0.03 5.000 47 9584 9582 9763 249.9 251.3 1.4 0.54 0.09 1.049 48 9584 9582 5157 762.4 764.0 1.6 0.21 0.06 0.973 49 5157 9582 9584 374.4 369.0-5.4-1.47 0.28 3.187 50 5157 9582 9763 65.9 65.0-0.9-1.38 0.11 2.246 51 9763 9582 5157 24.0 24.0 0.0-0.18 0.01 1.620 52 9763 9582 9584 58.1 90.0 31.9 35.48 3.71 5.000 53 9582 5157 5003 600.4 601.9 1.6 0.26 0.06 2.053 54 9582 5157 9583 278.4 279.9 1.5 0.55 0.09 0.430 55 5003 5157 9583 68.0 68.0 0.0-0.01 0.00 0.932 56 5003 5157 9582 440.3 440.0-0.3-0.07 0.02 3.751 57 5398 5378 9584 21.0 21.0 0.0-0.05 0.00 0.377 58 5158 5378 5398 112.0 113.0 0.9 0.84 0.09 3.852 59 5158 5378 9584 448.5 453.9 5.4 1.19 0.25 0.914 60 9584 5378 5158 300.1 297.3-2.8-0.94 0.16 0.477 61 5378 5158 5408 7.6 7.6 0.0-0.01 0.00 1.151 62 5378 5158 5377 210.2 210.2-0.1-0.03 0.00 4.065 63 5378 5158 5378 82.2 76.2-6.0-7.87 0.67 0.200 XA MDT0598Rp0001 6 F01

Count No. Nodes Estimated Flow Target Flow Difference % Difference GEH Statistic 64 5377 5158 5378 468.3 468.3 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.591 65 5408 5158 5377 0.4 1.0 0.6 62.57 0.00 5.000 66 5408 5158 5378 10.0 6.0-4.0-65.87 1.40 0.200 67 5029 9734 9735 240.9 240.9 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.351 68 5029 9734 9736 775.7 775.7-0.1-0.01 0.00 0.699 69 5029 9734 9750 69.4 69.4 0.0 0.01 0.00 0.431 70 9750 9734 5029 54.0 54.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.674 71 9750 9734 9735 33.0 33.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1.477 72 9750 9734 9736 27.0 27.0 0.0-0.01 0.00 2.320 73 9736 9734 9750 37.6 71.0 33.4 47.11 4.54 5.000 74 9736 9734 5029 1463.0 1463.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.780 75 9736 9734 9735 110.0 110.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1.348 76 9735 9734 9736 22.1 35.0 13.0 37.02 2.43 5.000 77 9735 9734 9750 50.0 50.0 0.0-0.01 0.00 0.963 78 9735 9734 5029 332.3 332.3 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.646 79 9563 9565-3902.1 3902.0-0.1 0.00 0.00 0.580 80 9565 9563-3599.3 3599.0-0.3-0.01 0.01 2.385 81 5191 9736-4284.8 4285.0 0.2 0.01 0.00 0.751 82 9736 5191-1919.2 1919.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.694 XA Table 2.2 Fit to Count Data - HGVs Count No. Nodes Estimated Flow Target Flow Difference % Difference GEH Statistic 1 5440 5311 5310 3.0 3.0 0.0-0.01 0.00 1.189 2 5440 5311 5446 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.08 0.00 3.044 3 5440 5311 5450 113.8 98.6-15.2-15.40 1.47 0.200 4 5450 5311 5440 9.3 9.3 0.0 0.08 0.00 2.729 5 5450 5311 5310 19.0 19.0 0.0-0.01 0.00 0.664 6 5450 5311 5446 0.0 14.0 14.0 99.99 5.29 5.000 7 5446 5311 5450 1.3 7.0 5.7 81.29 2.79 5.000 8 5446 5311 5440 54.7 49.1-5.7-11.57 0.79 0.200 9 5446 5311 5310 76.1 76.0-0.1-0.11 0.01 1.021 10 5310 5311 5446 25.1 6.2-18.9-302.87 4.77 0.200 11 5310 5311 5450 111.0 111.1 0.1 0.07 0.01 2.270 12 5310 5311 5440 16.7 16.7 0.0-0.02 0.00 0.558 13 5357 5029 9734 97.0 96.5-0.5-0.57 0.06 3.972 XA MDT0598Rp0001 7 F01

Count No. Nodes Estimated Flow Target Flow Difference % Difference GEH Statistic 14 9738 5357 5358 44.0 44.0 0.0-0.01 0.00 0.359 15 9734 5029 5357 1.6 11.0 9.4 85.13 3.73 5.000 16 5311 5310 5309 39.4 39.3-0.1-0.36 0.02 4.901 17 5311 5310 5355 12.1 12.1-0.1-0.52 0.02 0.200 18 5355 5310 5311 76.1 76.0-0.1-0.11 0.01 1.019 19 5355 5310 5309 18.4 28.1 9.7 34.67 2.02 5.000 20 5309 5310 5355 51.5 51.3-0.2-0.40 0.03 2.970 21 5309 5310 5311 67.4 67.4 0.1 0.08 0.01 3.649 22 5353 5358 5357 0.1 6.0 5.9 97.67 3.34 5.000 23 5310 5309 5308 5.2 6.0 0.8 13.53 0.34 5.000 24 5357 5358 5308 113.7 113.7 0.0 0.01 0.00 2.829 25 5357 5358 5353 22.7 22.7 0.0-0.02 0.00 0.307 26 5354 5355 5059 18.5 47.0 28.5 60.54 4.97 5.000 27 5354 5355 5310 40.5 49.0 8.5 17.45 1.28 5.000 28 5310 5355 5059 30.1 50.2 20.2 40.16 3.18 5.000 29 5310 5355 5356 12.8 12.9 0.1 0.63 0.02 3.205 30 5059 5355 5356 6.8 7.7 0.9 11.43 0.33 5.000 31 5059 5355 5310 14.4 14.4-0.1-0.40 0.01 0.959 32 5317 9584 9581 12.8 12.3-0.5-3.97 0.14 0.200 33 5317 9584 9582 9.8 9.8 0.0 0.11 0.00 1.445 34 5317 9584 5378 6.6 6.6 0.0 0.01 0.00 2.786 35 5378 9584 5317 18.4 18.6 0.2 0.87 0.04 1.247 36 5378 9584 9581 17.0 17.0 0.0 0.07 0.00 0.282 37 5378 9584 9582 25.9 28.0 2.2 7.69 0.42 5.000 38 9583 9584 5378 8.9 8.0-0.9-11.09 0.31 0.200 39 9583 9584 5317 4.2 6.0 1.8 30.14 0.80 5.000 40 9583 9584 9582 12.8 11.0-1.8-15.97 0.51 0.200 41 9582 9584 5378 31.1 31.1 0.0 0.02 0.00 4.492 42 9582 9584 5317 3.4 3.4 0.0 0.00 0.00 1.392 43 9582 9584 9581 40.6 40.6-0.1-0.18 0.01 1.126 44 9581 9582 9763 3.7 5.0 1.3 26.32 0.00 5.000 45 9581 9582 5157 7.5 6.0-1.5-24.63 0.57 0.200 46 9581 9582 9584 17.0 17.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 4.189 47 9584 9582 9763 29.9 29.9 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.825 48 9584 9582 5157 31.0 31.0 0.0-0.14 0.01 4.208 49 5157 9582 9584 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.01 0.00 4.821 50 5157 9582 9763 3.7 11.0 7.3 66.37 2.69 5.000 XA MDT0598Rp0001 8 F01

Count No. Nodes Estimated Flow Target Flow Difference % Difference GEH Statistic 51 9763 9582 5157 11.0 11.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.817 52 9763 9582 9584 23.6 23.6 0.0-0.07 0.00 0.467 53 9582 5157 5003 22.9 17.5-5.5-31.37 1.22 0.200 54 9582 5157 9583 33.9 37.0 3.1 8.38 0.52 5.000 55 5003 5157 9583 15.8 15.2-0.6-3.64 0.14 0.200 56 5003 5157 9582 18.1 12.0-6.1-51.30 1.58 0.200 57 5398 5378 9584 28.4 28.4 0.0 0.00 0.00 2.483 58 5158 5378 5398 22.6 28.6 6.0 20.85 1.18 5.000 59 5158 5378 9584 74.5 74.5 0.0 0.01 0.00 1.887 60 9584 5378 5158 5.1 5.1 0.0-0.01 0.00 4.184 61 5378 5158 5408 3.1 9.0 5.9 66.10 2.42 5.000 62 5378 5158 5377 75.0 75.0 0.0 0.01 0.00 0.206 63 5378 5158 5378 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.01 0.00 1.320 64 5377 5158 5378 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.838 65 5408 5158 5377 17.8 27.0 9.2 33.99 1.94 5.000 66 5408 5158 5378 414.0 414.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.375 67 5029 9734 9735 221.3 221.4 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.740 68 5029 9734 9736 239.0 239.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 1.893 69 5029 9734 9750 249.5 249.5 0.0 0.00 0.00 1.538 70 9750 9734 5029 3.0 3.0 0.0-0.01 0.00 1.189 71 9750 9734 9735 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.08 0.00 3.044 72 9750 9734 9736 113.8 98.6-15.2-15.40 1.47 0.200 73 9736 9734 9750 9.3 9.3 0.0 0.08 0.00 2.729 74 9736 9734 5029 19.0 19.0 0.0-0.01 0.00 0.664 75 9736 9734 9735 0.0 14.0 14.0 99.99 5.29 5.000 76 9735 9734 9736 1.3 7.0 5.7 81.29 2.79 5.000 77 9735 9734 9750 54.7 49.1-5.7-11.57 0.79 0.200 78 9735 9734 5029 76.1 76.0-0.1-0.11 0.01 1.021 79 9563 9565-25.1 6.2-18.9-302.87 4.77 0.200 80 9565 9563-111.0 111.1 0.1 0.07 0.01 2.270 81 5191 9736-16.7 16.7 0.0-0.02 0.00 0.558 82 9736 5191-97.0 96.5-0.5-0.57 0.06 3.972 XA MDT0598Rp0001 9 F01

2.3 FUTURE YEAR NETWORKS The future year model contains additional zones to allow for development at Park and Cherrywood. The model is suitable for use in testing both changes to infrastructure within the LAP area, and changes to the key junctions which limit capacity for traffic to and from the LAP area. MDT0598Rp0001 10 F01

3 DEMAND SPREADSHEET 3.1 SCOPE The inputs to the demand spreadsheet are as shown in Figure 3.1. This section of the report explains these values and how they were used to generate a future year highway demand matrix for use in the SATURN model. Figure 3.1 Demand Inputs Used for Initial Model Test The output from the spreadsheet was a future year highway matrix, in a format readable by SATURN. Figure 3.2 shows how the LAP area was divided into model zones, and how these zones relate to the land parcels defined in the LAP. In most cases, each land parcel was allocated to a single zone. In a few cases, land parcels were split between two zones, where it seems likely that access arrangements will differ. The blue lines on the diagram indicate assumed access routes, based on the outline access roads shown in the LAP. The extent of zone 10976 is nominal, reflecting the possibility of extending the previous LAP area southward. MDT0598Rp0001 11 F01

Figure 3.2 Model Zoning in LAP Area MDT0598Rp0001 12 F01

3.2 LAND USE The spreadsheet contained base year numbers of dwellings, and estimated base year figures for employment, retail floor area, and education places. These were based on Geodirectory data which gives a distribution of residential and commercial addresses between the zones of the model, and were informed by the assumptions made in the earlier NTA modelling work. The future levels of land-use development corresponding to any proposed variation of the LAP could be input by the user at the level of land parcels. Table 3.2 presents, at model zone level, the land-use figures corresponding to the base year situation, the existing LAP (prior to any amendment), and one option for amending the LAP that is currently under consideration by DLRCC. 3.3 TRIP GENERATION RATES All-modes rates of trip generation were taken from analysis of the previous NTA modelling work. From the run of the full NTA model, comparing the difference in land use inputs with the difference in trip numbers output, the following rates were obtained. Table 3.1 Trip generation rates (AM peak) Land use data Generation (trips per hour) Attraction (trips per hour) Residential (rate per unit) 0.733 0 Employment (rate per person) 0 0.772 Retail (rate per sqm) 0 0 Education (rate per place) 0 1 The difference between the two sets of trip numbers were fully explained by the difference in residential and employment land use inputs. It was hypothesised that the number of retail trips in the AM peak hour 08:00-09:00 is minimal, and that this would be a significant factor at other times of day. The NTA model inputs had zero values for education places. A nominal rate and number of education places were inserted to reflect the presence of two existing primary schools within the LAP area. MDT0598Rp0001 13 F01

Table 3.2 Land Use Inputs Zone Residential Units Employment Persons Retail GFA Education Places Increment Increment Current Increment Existing LAP Increment Amended LAP Current Existing LAP Increment Amended LAP Current Existing LAP Increment - Amended LAP Current Increment - Existing LAP Increment - Amended LAP 10,951 0 0 0 0 4249 4249 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,952 0 200 322 12 1551 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,953 18 710 710 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,954 206 139 139 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,955 72 239 300 12 549 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,956 6 57 272 0 1241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,957 1 0 163 4 1510 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,958 1 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 267 10,959 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,960 1 53 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,961 1 94 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,962 39 290 290 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,963 22 581 581 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,964 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,965 0 951 951 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,966 10 117 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,967 22 78 78 8 63 63 0 1995 1995 0 0 0 10,968 7 74 74 12 94 94 0 2955 2955 0 0 0 10,969 7 66 66 16 198 198 0 0 0 30 30 30 10,970 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 3900 3900 0 0 0 10,971 1 355 355 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,972 3 59 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,973 32 77 77 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,974 15 149 149 4 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 30 10,975 3 76 76 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,976 0 44 44 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LAP Total 468 4429 5036 114 9455 4604 0 8850 8850 60 60 327 MDT0598Rp0001 14 F01

3.4 MODAL SPLIT The number of future year highway trips will depend on the level of public transport service and level of provision for soft modes. However, exact specification of future bus services and footpath routes are normally considered to be details that are decided as part of a planning application, rather than features of a Local Area Plan. The approach taken was therefore to sketch out a nominal pattern of public transport routes, and relate mode share to indicative levels of PT service to a single typical destination. The LAP area is currently served by two bus routes the 44 which runs from Kiltiernan via Stepaside in the direction of Dundrum, and the 63 which runs from Kiltiernan via Carrickmines in the direction of Dun Laoghaire. In the 2012 base year, there is a Luas service at the nearby Ballyogan Wood stop just north of the Park development. For trips to and from locations outside the LAP area, a non-highway mode share of 60% was assumed to be achievable for development that is directly adjacent to the Luas stop, falling in a linear fashion with walking distance until reaching a 0% non-highway share at a walking time of 50 minutes (4.17km at an assumed walk speed of 5km per hour). In the future year, this non-highway mode share was assumed to be increased by the provision of two well-marketed bus services: Direct buses (based on the 44 service to Dundrum) A system of shuttle buses connecting with the Luas at Ballyogan Wood (based on an assumption that the 63 service could be diverted). Within the spreadsheet, the level of Public Transport service is specified by the user in the form of: a frequency for each of these services (in the form of headway the number of minutes between services in the peak hour), nominal bus fares, a multiplier on bus times (set to 1 if bus lanes are to be provided to maintain existing speeds, less than 1 if speed can be increased above base year speeds by a higher level of investment, and greater than 1 in proportion to highway times if buses are left to mix with regular traffic) headway of the Luas service, allowed representation of possible future increases in frequency a multiplier on Luas speed, reflected possible future scope for a faster Metro-style service. The spreadsheet then estimates for each zone of the model, a corresponding increase in public transport mode share, on the basis that: - mode share is determined by whichever of the three options direct bus, shuttle to the Luas walk to the Luas offers the lowest generalised cost for each zone - walk time and wait time have a weighting factor of 2.0 relative to in-vehicle time - average wait time is 0.4 times headway - no interchange penalty or crowding penalty applies. In the initial test scenario, the Public Transport inputs were as shown in Figure 3.1. On this basis nonhighway mode shares range from 40% in zones 10951 and 10952, that are an estimated 17 minutes walk from the Luas, to around 30% in zones 10971 and 10976, that benefit from the direct bus. MDT0598Rp0001 15 F01

The spreadsheet also took account of slow modes (walking and cycling) based on the proximity of each zone to other zones by applying known modal splits for these modes based on distance travelled. The resulting highway mode shares were assumed to apply equally to trip generations and attractions from each zone. 3.5 FUTURE YEAR TRIP ENDS Zones of the model were categorised in three ways: - LAP area zones, which are allocated future year trip numbers based on land use, generation / attraction rates and mode shares as described above - External development zones representing the growth poles at Park and Cherrywood. Benchmark trip generation and attraction numbers for these zones were taken from other studies; the spreadsheet included an option for the proportion of this benchmark level of demand which is assumed to apply in any given scenario. - Background zones, which were allocated an underlying level of background trip end growth. 3.6 BACKGROUND GROWTH The principal determinants of change in traffic levels are considered to be: Population other things being equal, each 1% increase in the population of an area will tend to increase traffic in proportion. Fuel price research 1 suggests that each 1% increase in fuel price will tend to decrease traffic by around 0.3% Income when household income rises, people tend to travel further, even if total numbers of trips made change little. Depending on context, each 1% increase in income may increase traffic by around 0.8%. Attractiveness of alternative modes - evidence suggests that real public transport fares have tended to rise over time, contributing to the rise in levels of car traffic Employment rising employment increases peak hour travel but may reduce interpeak travel. Within the GDA model, the standard forecasting assumption is that the various observable trend factors (such as changes in fuel prices, PT fares, income growth, take-up of cycling etc) tend to largely offset each other, and can thus be neglected. This leads to a model where land use development is the real driver, and overall traffic levels relate primarily to population and employment changes in each area. For this study, we therefore take the Core scenario to be one in which background traffic growth rates follow population growth in DLR county as a whole. In current Regional Planning Guidance, growth from a 2006 Census base is projected to 2016 and 2022. On the assumption that 2012 is linearly intermediate between 2006 and 2016 (preliminary 2011 Census results suggest that this is not unreasonable), projected population growth to 2022 is therefore taken as 13.75%, with employment 1 See for example Review of income and price elasticities of demand for road traffic, Daniel Graham and Stephen Glaister, Centre for Transport Studies, Imperial College, London MDT0598Rp0001 16 F01

increasing in proportion. This is therefore taken as the rate of background traffic growth in the study area for this scenario. The spreadsheet includes options for varying the rate and interpolating/extrapolating to earlier or later years. For the High traffic growth scenario, we assume that: the same rate of population-related growth applies recent fuel price increases are short-term fluctuations, and in the longer term fuel price increases are offset by the development of more fuel-efficient vehicles (including some level of use of electric vehicles powered by non-oil-derived electricity) current depressed economic conditions are offset by strong economic growth in the latter part of the decade, giving a long-term rate of income growth of 2% per annum, leading to a 17% increase in overall traffic over the Core scenario the current unemployment rate of around 14% nationally is halved, leading to a 7% increase in peak hour traffic but reductions in interpeak traffic. Combining these effects, existing or background traffic within the model is assumed to grow by an extra 25% above the Core scenario levels. Note that within this structure, changes in numbers of trips to and from the development are not dependent on these scenario assumptions, but are related to assumed rates of completion and occupation of the land use changes forming part of the Local Area Plan. The number of possible scenarios is large, and more extreme cases could easily be devised. However it is considered that this approach gives a range within which it is sensible to plan. 3.7 MODELLING EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENTS Benchmark trips from external development zones were taken from the SATURN model developed by RPS for DLRCC to look at highway infrastructure options for the Cherrywood SDZ. These are shown in Figure 3.3 and 3.4. The spreadsheet applied a Furness process to factor up the base year matrix so as to match the future year trip ends. Thus for most zones of the model, the assumption was that the pattern of trip origins and destinations is close to that in the base year, with the levels of trip-making increased to reflect the impact of anticipated levels of land-use. For the external development zones where there is zero traffic in the base year, the trip distribution was borrowed from a nearby zone which has non-zero base year flows. So in Fig 3.4, the trip distribution from the two zones connecting to the west junction (which doesn t exist in the base year) is taken to be the same as for the east junction (which does exist in the base model). Similarly, trips to/from the proposed Cherrywood link road over the motorway were taken to resemble trips from the zone north of the Carrickmines interchange, except that trips to/from M50 south are set to zero, as these are assumed to use the Laughanstown interchange instead. MDT0598Rp0001 17 F01

Figure 3.3 Benchmark Trips (PCU) Park and Cherrywood North 112 816 2013 1245 Figure 3.4 Benchmark Trips (PCU) Cherrywood South 566 318 739 822 552 614 151 158 MDT0598Rp0001 18 F01

3.8 COMPARISON OF FUTURE GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS TO 2005 NTA MODEL The 2005 modelling work undertaken by the NTA used a complex process, combining runs of the full GDA model with runs of a local area highway model. But the modelled levels of demand in 2022 can be considered to be based on the planning data inputs projected population and employment levels in each zone. Subject to confirmation with NTA, those projected levels of growth envisage the population of DLR County growing by 27.5% between 2007 and 2022. Current RPG has population growth of 13.75% between 2012 and 2022. The sketchplan model starts from estimated 2012 traffic levels, which are (based on observed trends from the nearest permanent automatic traffic counter) around 8% below 2007 levels. Thus, insofar as population change can be taken as a guide to traffic change, our current expectation is that 2022 will be only around 4.5% above 2007 levels (0.92 x 1.137) a substantial drop compared with the earlier projection, reflecting the impacts of the recession. Clearly the future remains uncertain. Nevertheless, given current prospects for economic growth and fuel prices unforeseeable in 2005 - we believe that the current sketchplan model offers a substantially more realistic projection of future traffic levels than the earlier work. MDT0598Rp0001 19 F01

4 FORECASTING SCENARIOS 4.1 STRUCTURING THE ISSUE Good practice is to make a clear distinction between options ways of solving the transport problems of the study area, whose merits are to be considered and scenarios external circumstances that may come about, and to which the preferred option should be shown to be robust. For this study, an option for the LAP area was defined by a combination of: - development quanta for each land parcel - highway infrastructure within & in the immediate vicinity of the LAP area - level of bus service provision that is to be specified as some form of planning condition. Each scenario was defined by: - assumptions on rate of background traffic growth - assumptions on level of development occurring in Park and Cherrywood by the modelled year - assumptions on external infrastructure and characteristics of Luas service. A core ( most likely or central case ) scenario was agreed and used to test a range of options. Then in a second model run, the emerging preferred option was sensitivity-tested against a plausible scenario representing a future condition with higher traffic growth. 4.2 CORE SCENARIO The core scenario tested was as follows: Forecast year 2022 Population growth rate over this ten-year period as in RPG (multiplier=100%) No net effect from income growth, fuel price increases etc (the assumption in the GDA model) Luas service remains constant, with any increase in capacity met by lengthening of trams (future headway = 7.5 minutes, speed multiplier = 1.0) No M50 widening Cherrywood development at 50% of benchmark level by modelled year Park development 100% complete by modelled year. 4.3 HIGH TRAFFIC GROWTH SCENARIO For reasons outlined in Section 3.6, the high traffic growth scenario tested represented a combined growth in background traffic of 25% compared with the Core Scenario, due to: A 17% increase in overall background traffic due to strong economic growth in the second half of the decade A 7% increase in peak hour background traffic due to a reduction in unemployment levels. MDT0598Rp0001 20 F01

5 SATURN MODEL RUNS - RESULTS 5.1 CORE SCENARIO Results from the Core Scenario model runs are presented below. A number of indicators from the model run results were used to compare the various options; The total delay across the network (expressed as PCU-hours) as summarised in the global network statistics The delay and blocking back at junctions and the volume / capacity (V/C) ratio for each link, illustrated diagrammatically Queue lengths diagrams and modelled layout at key junctions, namely: 1. Enniskerry Road / GDDR 2. GDDR / GLDR 3. Golf Lane Roundabout 2 4. GLDR / Glenamuck Road 5. GLDR / Ballycorus Road 6. Park Development Access Junction 5.1.1 Option 0 - Do-Minimum The assumptions for the Do Minimum option of the Core Scenario are summarised thus: Development quanta as in previous LAP GDDR/GLDR as published No Cherrywood link road - traffic from the north access to Cherrywood negotiates the M50 Carrickmines Interchange. PT frequencies as in previous NTA modelling work no shuttle bus, direct bus service with 24 minute headway (2.5 per direction per hour) Bus lanes assumed to be provided at key locations to maintain base year bus speeds. The basic road infrastructure layout for the Do Minimum Option and the key junctions numbered above are outlined in Figure 5.1, below. 2 Upgraded to signalised junction in Option 3 MDT0598Rp0001 21 F01

Figure 5.1 Road Infrastructure Layout Do Minimum Option 6 3 2 1 4 5 Network Statistics Table 5.1 Network Statistics Do Minimum Option Simulation Totals: This Time Period Next time Period Total Units Transient Queues 424.6 38.5 463.1 PCU-Hours Over-Capacity Queues 1123.2 333.7 1457.0 PCU-Hours Free Flow Time 1727.2 67.1 1794.3 PCU-Hours Link: Delays 122.2 3.6 125.9 PCU-Hours Cruise Time 1849.4 70.7 1920.2 PCU-Hours Total Travel Time 3397.2 443.0 3840.2 PCU-Hours Travel Distance 122781.9 4128.3 126910.2 PCU-kms Overall Average Speed 36.1 9.3 33.0 KPH Fuel Consumption 11847.3 878.9 12635.2 Litres The global network statistics for the Do Minimum option run are summarised in Table 5.1, above. The total delay across the network is the sum of the transient queues, over-capacity queues and link delays which, for the Do Minimum option, is 2046 PCU-hours. MDT0598Rp0001 22 F01

The total travel time across the entire network is 3840 PCU-Hours, with an overall travel distance of 126910 PCU-kms, an overall average speed of 33.0 KPH and a total fuel consumption of 12635 litres. Junction Delay Figure 5.2 Junction Delays and Blocking Back on Do Minimum Network Figure 5.2, above, illustrates the delay at each junction on the Do Minimum network whereby a larger radius of red circle represents a greater delay. The level of blocking back is represented by the green lines. The diagram indicates significant delays at a number of junctions on the network, particularly at the proposed Glenamuck Road / Link Road (between GDDR and Glenamuck Road) junction (~540 seconds), the proposed Enniskerry Road / Glenamuck District Distributor Road (GDDR) junction (~260 seconds), the proposed GDDR / Link Road junction, the proposed Glenamuck Road / Glenamuck MDT0598Rp0001 23 F01

Local Distributor Road (GLDR) junction (~110 seconds) and the Enniskerry Road / Ballycorus Road junction (~60 seconds). The significant predicted delay at the Glenamuck Road / Link Road junction is most likely due to the large volume of opposed traffic turning right on to the Link Road from the northern arm of the Glenamuck Road. Further, less significant, delays are evident along a number of other internal junctions within the LAP area. Significant delays are also evident around the Park development at the Carrickmines Interchange southern roundabout (~50 seconds) and the Park development access junction (~200 seconds). Significant levels of blocking back are evident on the Link Road between the GDDR and Glenamuck Road and along the length of the GLDR. MDT0598Rp0001 24 F01

Volume / Capacity Ratio Figure 5.3 indicates the links on the Do Minimum network that have capacity issues. The diagram illustrates the V/C ratio on each link and varies by intensity, whereby a solid line indicates a high V/C ratio, with decreasing levels of fill representing decreasing V/C ratios. The diagram indicates that under the Do Minimum option, a number of key links on the network will experience significant capacity issues, including the existing Glenamuck Road, the GLDR as well as a number of the new internal link roads within the LAP area. Figure 5.3 Do Minimum Option V/C Ratios MDT0598Rp0001 25 F01

Queue Length Diagrams Figures 5.4 5.9 illustrate the modelled layout and predicted average queue lengths at the six key junctions in the LAP area listed in Section 5.1. Figure 5.4 Do Minimum Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 1 - Enniskerry Road / GDDR Junction Figure 5.4 illustrates the modelled layout of the Enniskerry Road / GDDR signalised junction which was as specified in the original Glenamuck District Distributor Road Preliminary Design Report (2006). The diagram indicates a significant predicted average queue of 98 PCUs for vehicles turning right from the existing Enniskerry Road on to the GDDR and 16 PCUs for vehicles turning left on to Enniskerry Road. MDT0598Rp0001 26 F01

Figure 5.5 Do Minimum Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 2 - GDDR / GLDR Junction Figure 5.5 illustrates the modelled layout of the proposed GDDR / GLDR signalised junction which was modelled as specified in the original Glenamuck District Distributor Road Preliminary Design Report (2006). The left-turns from the GLDR to GDDR West and from GDDR East to the GLDR were modelled as slip lanes and therefore do not appear on the junction diagram. The diagram indicates an average queue of 11 PCUs for vehicles moving straight through the junction from GDDR West to GDDR East and an average queue of 7 PCUs for vehicles turning right from GLDR to GDDR East. The diagram also indicates that blocking back is predicted to occur along the GLDR arm of the junction. MDT0598Rp0001 27 F01

Figure 5.6 Do Minimum Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 3 Golf Lane Roundabout at Carrickmines Interchange Figure 5.6 illustrates the modelled layout of the proposed Golf Lane Roundabout which was modelled as specified in the original Glenamuck District Distributor Road Preliminary Design Report (2006). The diagram indicates significant predicted average queues of 11 PCUs for vehicles turning right from Glenamuck Road on to the GDDR and 16 PCUs for vehicles making the U-turn back on to Glenamuck Road in order to access the Park development via the left-in, left-out junction further North (Junction 6). Blocking back is also predicted to occur on the Glenamuck Road arm of the roundabout. MDT0598Rp0001 28 F01

Figure 5.7 Do Minimum Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 4 - Glenamuck Road / GLDR Junction Figure 5.7, above, illustrates the modelled layout of the proposed Glenamuck Road / GLDR signalised junction, which was modelled as specified in the original Glenamuck District Distributor Road Preliminary Design Report (2006). The left-turns from GLDR south to Glenamuck Road southwest and from Glenamuck Road northeast to GLDR south were modelled as slip lanes and therefore do not appear on the junction diagram. The diagram indicates significant average queues of 17 PCUs for vehicles turning on to GLDR north from Glenamuck Road southwest and 27 PCUs for vehicles travelling straight-through the junction from GLDR south to GLDR north. The diagram also indicates that blocking back is predicted to occur on the Glenamuck Road southeast and GLDR south arms of the junction. MDT0598Rp0001 29 F01

Figure 5.8 Do Minimum Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 5 - GLDR / Ballycorus Road Junction Figure 5.8, above, illustrates the modelled layout of the proposed GLDR / Ballycorus Road signalised junction, which was modelled as specified in the original Glenamuck District Distributor Road Preliminary Design Report (2006). The left-turns from GLDR to Ballycorus Road east and from Ballycorus Road west to GLDR south were modelled as slip lanes and therefore do not appear on the junction diagram. The diagram indicates that significant queues and blocking back are not predicted to occur on any arm of the junction. MDT0598Rp0001 30 F01

Figure 5.9 Do Minimum Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 6 - Park Development Access Junction Figure 5.9 illustrates the modelled layout of the Park development access junction, which was modelled as per the existing layout. The diagram indicates significant average queues of 63 PCUs for traffic turning into the Park development and 119 PCUs for traffic travelling straight through the junction from Glenamuck Road north to Glenamuck Road south. This southbound traffic is delayed by blocking-back from Junction 3 (outlined previously, which is located immediately south of this junction). Note that this Do-Minimum option assumes full development of the Park site without amendments to the access junction. MDT0598Rp0001 31 F01

5.1.2 Option 1 Current thinking for LAP area As Option 0 but with: Revised development quanta (to reflect the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Development Plan) Extension of GLDR to Enniskerry Road Staggered junction of GLDR with existing Glenamuck Road Network Statistics Table 5.2 Network Statistics Option 1 Simulation Totals: This Time Period Next time Period Total Units Transient Queues 419.1 10.4 429.5 PCU-Hours Over-Capacity Queues 501.7 164.3 666.0 PCU-Hours Free Flow Time 1667.5 21.2 1688.6 PCU-Hours Link: Delays 137.2 1.8 139.0 PCU-Hours Cruise Time 1804.7 23.0 1827.7 PCU-Hours Total Travel Time 2725.5 197.7 2923.2 PCU-Hours Travel Distance 120214.1 1243.8 121457.9 PCU-kms Overall Average Speed 44.1 6.3 41.5 KPH Fuel Consumption 10651.4 305.4 10956.8 Litres The global network statistics for the Option 1 model run are summarised in Table 5.2, above. The total delay across the network is the sum of the transient queues, over-capacity queues and link delays which, for Option 1, is 1235 PCU-hours. This represents a decrease of 812 PCU-hours (40%) compared to the Do Minimum option, and a 13% saving in total fuel consumption within the modelled area. Table 5.2 also indicates decreases in total travel time (917 PCU-Hours) and travel distance (5452 PCU-kms) as well as an increase in overall average speed from 33 KPH to 41.5 KPH compared to the Do Minimum option network. In general, the difference in network statistics for the Option 1 network indicate compared to the Do Minimum network indicate that Option 1 represents a more efficient network. MDT0598Rp0001 32 F01

Junction Delay Figure 5.10, below, illustrates the delay at each junction on the Option 1 network whereby a larger radius of red circle represents a greater delay. The level of blocking back is represented by the green lines. Figure 5.10 Junction Delays and Blocking Back on Option 1 Network Figure 5.10 indicates a reduction in the number of junctions predicted to experience significant delays in Option 1, compared with the Do Minimum option. With Option 1, only the Park development access junction is predicted to experience an excessive delay (~270 seconds). Several junctions within the LAP area, which were predicted to experience significant delays in the Do Minimum Option, such as the Enniskerry Road / GDDR junction, the GLDR / Glenamuck junction and the Glenamuck Road / Link Road junction, are all predicted to experience much shorter delays with MDT0598Rp0001 33 F01

Option 1. The longest predicted delays within the LAP area occur at the Link Road / Glenamuck Road junction (45 seconds) and at the Enniskerry Road / Ballycorus Road junction (61 seconds). This reduction in significant delays within the LAP area is likely due to two factors; the extension of the GLDR south to Enniskerry Road, allowing traffic to bypass Kiltiernan village and the re-designation of several land parcels within the LAP area from commercial / office to residential in the revised LAP, which would reduce the level of trip attraction within the LAP area. Figure 5.10 also indicates that significant blocking back is not predicted to occur at any point on the Option 1 network. MDT0598Rp0001 34 F01

Volume / Capacity Ratio Figure 5.11 indicates the links on the Option 1 network that have capacity issues. The diagram illustrates the V/C ratio on each link and varies by intensity, whereby a solid line indicates a high V/C ratio, with decreasing levels of fill representing decreasing V/C ratios. Figure 5.11 Option 1 Network V/C Ratios The diagram indicates that, with Option 1, the number of links in the network experiencing capacity issues will reduce significantly. Most of the links on the network with high V/C ratio are in and around the vicinity of the Park development, which is to be expected somewhat as Option 1 does not include the upgrading of the access arrangements for the development. MDT0598Rp0001 35 F01

The capacity issues on the links within the LAP area that were evident in the Do Minimum option are not present with Option 1. Queue Length Diagrams Figures 5.12 5.17 illustrate the modelled layout and predicted average queue lengths at the six key junctions in the LAP area listed in Section 5.1. Figure 5.12 Option 1 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 1 - Enniskerry Road / GDDR Junction Figure 5.12 indicates that the significant average queues that were predicted for the Enniskerry Road / GDDR junction in the Do Minimum option are not present in Option 1. The predicted average queues at the junction are zero on all arms and blocking back is not predicted to occur. MDT0598Rp0001 36 F01

Figure 5.13 Option 1 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 2 - GDDR / GLDR Junction Figure 5.13 indicates that there are no significant average queues predicted to occur at Junction 2 in Option 1. There is a predicted average queue of 7 PCUs for traffic moving straight-through the junction from GDDR west to GDDR east, this is a reduction of 4 PCUs compared with the Do Minimum option. The diagram also shows that the predicted average queue for traffic turning right from the GLDR to GDDR east is reduced by more than half to 3 PCUs when compared with the Do Minimum Option. Blocking back is not predicted to occur on any of the arms at the junction. MDT0598Rp0001 37 F01

Figure 5.14 Option 1 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 3 Golf Lane Roundabout at Carrickmines Interchange Figure 5.14 indicates a significant predicted average queue of 10 PCUs for traffic making the U-turn at the roundabout back on to Glenamuck Road to access the left-in left-out junction at Park. This represents a decrease compared with the Do Minimum option. The predicted significant queuing and blocking back that was evident on the Glenamuck Road arm of the roundabout in the Do Minimum option, is not evident in Option 1. MDT0598Rp0001 38 F01

Figure 5.15a Option 1 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 4a - GLDR / Glenamuck Road Junction Northern Stagger In Option 1 the Glenamuck Road / GLDR junction is implemented as a stagger junction, as opposed to a crossroad layout in the Do Minimum option. Figure 5.15a illustrates the revised layout at the northern stagger of the junction, which was modelled as specified in the Glenamuck Kiltiernan Local Road Improvements Preliminary Design Report (2008). The left turn from GLDR north to Glenamuck Road and from Glenamuck Road to GLDR south are modelled as slip lanes and therefore do not appear in the junction diagram. Figure 5.15a indicates that significant queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at the northern stagger of the junction in Option 1. MDT0598Rp0001 39 F01

Figure 5.15b Option 1 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 4b - GLDR / Glenamuck Road Junction Southern Stagger Figure 5.15b illustrates the revised layout at the southern stagger of the GLDR / Glenamuck Road junction, which was modelled as specified in the Glenamuck Kiltiernan Local Road Improvements Preliminary Design Report (2008), with an additional arm added to provide access to a proposed school. The left turn from GLDR south to Glenamuck Road is modelled as a slip lane and therefore does not appear in the junction diagram. The diagram indicates that the significant queuing and blocking back that was evident at the junction in the Do Minimum option is not present in Option 1. While queuing is still predicted to occur on the southern arm of the GLDR, the average predicted queue of 9 PCUs is a significant reduction compared to the 27 PCUs predicted in the Do Minimum option. The predicted queue of 17 PCUs for traffic turning from Glenamuck Road on to the GLDR North that was present in the Do Minimum option is reduced to 3 PCUs in Option 1. MDT0598Rp0001 40 F01

Figure 5.16 Option 1 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 5 - GLDR / Ballycorus Road Junction Figure 5.16 illustrates the revised layout at the GLDR / Ballycorus Road junction, which has been upgraded to a signalised crossroad in Option 1. The left-turns from GLDR to Ballycorus Road east and from Ballycorus Road west to GLDR south were modelled as slip lanes and therefore do not appear on the junction diagram. The diagram indicates that, as with the Do Minimum option, significant average queues and blocking back are not predicted to occur at the junction in Option 1. MDT0598Rp0001 41 F01

Figure 5.17 Option 1 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 6 - Park Development Access Junction Figure 5.17 indicates that significant queuing is evident at the Park development access junction in Option 1. This predicted queue represents a significant increase compared with the Do Minimum option. This is likely due to the decrease in junction delays within the LAP area making the route via the GDDR and GLDR more attractive to traffic in the assignment leading to more significant traffic volumes approaching the access junction along the southern arm. MDT0598Rp0001 42 F01

5.1.3 Option 2 - Cherrywood/Park Infrastructure As Option 1 but with Include Link over motorway from north side of Cherrywood SDZ Upgrade existing Golf Lane Roundabout to Traffic Light controlled T-junction with multiple lanes. Include traffic light controlled junction to Park Developments (full access). Include for Park Developments link north to Ballyogan Rd. Network Statistics The global network statistics for the Option 2 model run are summarised in Table 5.3, below. The total delay across the network is the sum of the transient queues, over-capacity queues and link delays which, for Option 2, is 876 PCU-hours. This represents a decrease of 359 PCU-hours compared to Option 1 and a decrease of 1170 PCU-hours (57%) compared to the Do Minimum option. Table 5.3 also indicates reductions in fuel consumption (364 litres) and total travel time (326 PCU- Hours) and an increase in overall average speed, from 41.5 KPH to 47.4 KPH, indicating an improvement in efficiency of the Option 2 network compared to Option 1 and, therefore, a further improvement compared to the Do Minimum network. Table 5.3 Network Statistics Option 2 Simulation Totals: This Time Period Next time Period Total Units Transient Queues 471.8 10.6 482.4 PCU-Hours Over-Capacity Queues 224.2 40.4 264.5 PCU-Hours Free Flow Time 1707.1 14.5 1721.6 PCU-Hours Link: Delays 127.5 1.1 128.6 PCU-Hours Cruise Time 1834.6 15.7 1850.2 PCU-Hours Total Travel Time 2530.5 66.7 2597.2 PCU-Hours Travel Distance 122392.1 775.7 123167.9 PCU-kms Overall Average Speed 48.4 11.6 47.4 KPH Fuel Consumption 10469.1 123.7 10592.8 Litres MDT0598Rp0001 43 F01

Junction Delay Figure 5.18, below, illustrates the delay at each junction on the Option 2 network whereby a larger radius of red circle represents a greater delay. The level of blocking back is represented by the green lines. Figure 5.18 Junction Delays and Blocking Back on Option 2 Network The diagram indicates that a significant delay of ~100 seconds is predicted to occur at the former Golf Lane Roundabout at Carrickmines Interchange, (which has been upgraded to a signalised junction and is henceforth referred to as the GDDR / Cherrywood Link Road junction). The delay at the main Park development access junction on Glenamuck Road is significantly reduced to ~15 seconds in Option 2. MDT0598Rp0001 44 F01

Some minor delays are predicted within the LAP area, the most significant (~40 seconds) of which occurs at the Link Road / Glenamuck Road junction. Other delays on the network as a whole are in line with those predicted for both the Do minimum option and Option 1. There is no evidence of significant blocking back occurring on the Option 2 network. Volume / Capacity Ratio Figure 5.19 indicates the links on the Option 2 network that have capacity issues. The diagram illustrates the V/C ratio on each link and varies by intensity, whereby a solid line indicates a high V/C ratio, with decreasing levels of fill representing decreasing V/C ratios. Figure 5.19 Option 2 Network V/C Ratios MDT0598Rp0001 45 F01

The diagram indicates that, as with previous options high V/C ratios are predicted in and around the Park development, despite the provision of new access infrastructure in Option 2. Within the LAP area, there do not appear to be significant capacity issues predicted. Queue Length Diagrams Figures 5.20 5.25 illustrate the modelled layout and predicted average queue lengths at a number of key junctions in the LAP area. Figure 5.20 Option 2 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 1 - Enniskerry Road / GDDR Junction Figure 5.20, indicates that queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at the Enniskerry Road / GDDR junction in Option 2. This is consistent with the results of the Option 1 model run and, again, represents a significant improvement compared to the Do Minimum option. MDT0598Rp0001 46 F01

Figure 5.21 Option 2 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 2 - GDDR / GLDR Junction Figure 5.21 indicates that there are no significant average queues predicted to occur at Junction 2 in Option 2. There is a predicted average queue of 6 PCUs for traffic moving straight-through the junction from GDDR west to GDDR east, this is consistent with Option 1. While the predicted average queue for traffic turning right from the GLDR to GDDR remains at 3 PCUs as in Option 1. Blocking back is not predicted to occur at this junction in Option 2. MDT0598Rp0001 47 F01

Figure 5.22 Option 2 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 3 - GDDR / Cherrywood Link Road junction Figure 5.22 illustrates the upgraded layout of the former Golf Lane Roundabout at Carrickmines, which, in Option 2, has been converted to a signalised junction to tie in with the Cherrywood Link Road. The diagram indicates a significant predicted average queue for traffic turning right from the Cherrywood Link Road to Glenamuck Road. MDT0598Rp0001 48 F01

Figure 5.23a Option 2 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 4a - GLDR / Glenamuck Road Junction Northern Stagger Figure 5.23a indicates that significant queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at the northern stagger of junction 4 in Option 2. MDT0598Rp0001 49 F01

Figure 5.23b Option 2 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 4b - GLDR / Glenamuck Road Junction Southern Stagger Figure 5.23b indicates that significant queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at the southern stagger of junction 4 in Option 2. The relatively minor predicted average queues for traffic turning left from Glenamuck Road on to GLDR north and travelling straight-through the junction from GLDR south to GLDR north are consistent with those that were evident in Option 1. MDT0598Rp0001 50 F01

Figure 5.24 Option 2 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 5 - GLDR / Ballycorus Road Junction Figure 5.24 indicates that significant average queues and blocking back are not predicted to occur on any arm at Junction 5 in Option 2. The relatively minor predicted average queues at this junction are consistent with those that were evident in Option 1. MDT0598Rp0001 51 F01

Figure 5.25 Option 2 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 6 - Park Development Access Junction Figure 5.25 illustrates the upgraded layout of the Park Development Access junction, which, in Option 2, has been converted to a signalised junction. The diagram indicates an average queue of 4 PCUs for traffic turning right into the Park development from Glenamuck Road north and 7 PCUs for traffic travelling straight-through the junction from Glenamuck Road north to south. The significant average queue of 248 PCUs for traffic turning left into the Park development from Glenamuck Road south, which was evident in Option 1, is not predicted to occur in option 2. This is most likely due to the upgraded access arrangements at this junction as well as the development of a subsequent access junction for the development on Ballyogan Road as part of the completed Park development proposals that were incorporated into Option 2. MDT0598Rp0001 52 F01

5.1.4 Option 3 Test scope for reduction in standard As Option 2 but with dual carriageway section of GDDR reduced to a single carriageway Network Statistics The global network statistics for the Option 3 model run are summarised in Table 5.4, below. The total delay across the network is the sum of the transient queues, over-capacity queues and link delays which, for Option 3, is 876 PCU-hours. This is consistent with the value of 876 PCU-hours in Option 2 and is therefore a lower total compared to both the Do Minimum option and Option 1. Table 5.4 also indicates a consistency between the Option 2 and Option 3 networks in terms of total travel time, travel distance and average speed. While there is a minor increase in total fuel consumption compared to Option 2, Option 3 still represents a significant improvement compared to the Do Minimum and Option 1 networks. Table 5.4 Network Statistics Option 3 Simulation Totals: This Time Period Next time Period Total Units Transient Queues 471.0 10.6 481.6 PCU-Hours Over-Capacity Queues 224.2 40.4 264.6 PCU-Hours Free Flow Time 1707.1 14.5 1721.6 PCU-Hours Link: Delays 127.5 1.1 128.7 PCU-Hours Cruise Time 1834.6 15.6 1850.2 PCU-Hours Total Travel Time 2529.8 66.6 2596.5 PCU-Hours Travel Distance 122395.5 773.5 123169.1 PCU-kms Overall Average Speed 48.4 11.6 47.4 KPH Fuel Consumption 10488.3 123.5 10611.9 Litres MDT0598Rp0001 53 F01

Junction Delay Figure 5.26, below, illustrates the delay at each junction on the Option 3 network whereby a larger radius of red circle represents a greater delay. The level of blocking back is represented by the green lines. Figure 5.26 Junction Delays and Blocking Back on Option 3 Network The diagram indicates that, the reduced capacity on the GDDR due to the reduction in the number of lanes is predicted to result in increased delays at junctions along the road; specifically, the GDDR / Cherrywood Link Road junction (~100 seconds). A delay of ~40 seconds is also predicted at the Glenamuck Road / Link Road junction. The diagram also indicates that blocking back is not evident on the Option 3 network. MDT0598Rp0001 54 F01

Volume / Capacity Ratio Figure 5.27 indicates the links on the Option 3 network that have capacity issues. The diagram illustrates the V/C ratio on each link and varies by intensity, whereby a solid line indicates a high V/C ratio, with decreasing levels of fill representing decreasing V/C ratios. The diagram shows that, while the reduced capacity along the GDDR itself does not appear to result in a significantly high V/C ratio, the various link roads and access roads off it will experience slight capacity issues as a result. Figure 5.27 Option 3 Network V/C Ratios MDT0598Rp0001 55 F01

Queue Length Diagrams Figures 5.28 5.33 illustrate the modelled layout and predicted average queue lengths at a number of key junctions in the LAP area. Figure 5.28 Option 3 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 1 - Enniskerry Road / GDDR Junction Figure 5.28 indicates that queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at the Enniskerry Road / GDDR junction in Option 3. This is consistent with the results of the Option 1 and 2 model runs and, again, represents a significant improvement compared to the Do Minimum option. MDT0598Rp0001 56 F01

Figure 5.29 Option 3 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 2 - GDDR / GLDR Junction Figure 5.29 indicates that there are no significant average queues predicted to occur at Junction 2 in Option 3. There is a predicted average queue of 6 PCUs for traffic moving straight-through the junction from GDDR west to GDDR east, this is consistent with Option 2. While the predicted average queue for traffic turning right from the GLDR to GDDR remains at 3 PCUs as in Option 2. Blocking back is not predicted to occur at this junction in Option 3. MDT0598Rp0001 57 F01

Figure 5.30 Option 3 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 3 - GDDR / Cherrywood Link Road junction Figure 5.30 indicates that the reduction of the GDDR to one lane in part will not have an adverse impact on this junction, with predicted queues similar to those outlined for Option 2 in Figure 5.22. The diagram indicates that blocking back is not predicted to occur at the junction in Option 3. MDT0598Rp0001 58 F01

Figure 5.31a Option 3 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 4a - GLDR / Glenamuck Road Junction Northern Stagger Figure 5.31a indicates that significant queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at the northern stagger of Junction 4 in Option 3. MDT0598Rp0001 59 F01

Figure 5.31b Option 3 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 4b - GLDR / Glenamuck Road Junction Southern Stagger Figure 5.31b indicates that significant queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at the southern stagger of junction 4 in Option 3. The relatively minor predicted average queues for traffic turning left from Glenamuck Road on to GLDR north and travelling straight-through the junction from GLDR south to GLDR north are consistent with those that were evident in Option 2. MDT0598Rp0001 60 F01

Figure 5.32 Option 3 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 5 - GLDR / Ballycorus Road Junction Figure 5.32 indicates that significant average queues and blocking back are not predicted to occur on any arm at Junction 5 in Option 3. MDT0598Rp0001 61 F01

Figure 5.33 Option 3 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 6 - Park Development Access Junction Figure 5.33 indicates that an average queue of 4 PCUs for traffic turning right into the Park development from Glenamuck Road north and 7 PCUs for traffic travelling straight-through the junction from Glenamuck Road north to south. The average queues at this junction are not significantly different from those evident for Option 2. MDT0598Rp0001 62 F01

Option 3a Removal of Link Road Sensitivity Test A sensitivity analysis was undertaken whereby the Option 3 network was amended so that the Link road from GDDR to Glenamuck Road was reduced to an access junction only on the GDDR side. Figure 5.34, below, illustrates the delay at each junction for the Option 3a network, as well as the level of blocking back (red circle radii and green lines, as before). Figure 5.34 Junction Delays and Blocking Back on Option 3a Network Figure 5.34 indicates that significant delays are predicted to occur at a number of junctions within the LAP area for Option 3a, namely; the Enniskerry / GDDR, GDDR / GLDR and GLDR / Glenamuck Road junctions. Furthermore, significant blocking back is predicted to occur along the northern half of the GLDR and on the GDDR between the junctions with the GLDR and the Link Road to Glenamuck Road. MDT0598Rp0001 63 F01

An investigation of origin and destination of traffic flows on key links on the network indicated a significant re-assignment of traffic within the LAP area as a result of the removal of the link between the GDDR and Glenamuck Road. The land parcels at the northeastern end of Glenamuck Road are designated for high-density development and therefore generate a significant number of outbound trips during the AM peak hour. The Link Road between the GDDR and Glenamuck Road represents the shortest route out of the LAP area to the north (and to the M50 in particular) for this traffic. In Option 3, 38% of traffic on the Link Road originates in the development zones in the direct vicinity, however, when the Link Road is removed, this traffic has no choice but to travel via the GLDR to reach the GDDR. The result of this is increased delay at the GLDR / Glenamuck Road junction. In Option 3, a significant proportion (74%) of the northbound traffic on the GLDR travelled via the Link Road, in order to reach the GDDR with only 26% actually travelling as far as the GLDR / GDDR junction. When the Link Road is removed, all of this northbound traffic must travel via the GLDR / GDDR junction, or find an alternative. This, combined with the effect of the additional traffic from the Glenamuck Road that now uses the GLDR / GDDR junction, results in increased delay at the GLDR / GDDR junction and therefore a re-assignment of 37% of northbound traffic from the GLDR to the Enniskerry Road. In Option 3, all of the traffic travelling north along the Enniskerry Road originates within the LAP area. When the Link Road is removed, additional traffic from the GLDR re-assigns and travels via the Enniskerry Road; however, all of the original LAP area traffic still uses this route as well. This results in increased delay at the GDDR / Enniskerry Road junction. Furthermore, a significant volume of traffic from development zone 10965, which travelled via the GLDR to reach the GDDR in Option 3, will re-assign to use the Enniskerry Road when the Link Road is removed, further exacerbating the delay at the GDDR / Enniskerry Road junction. MDT0598Rp0001 64 F01

5.1.5 Option 4 LAP Area Infrastructure As Option 1 plus: Reduction of the GDDR and GLDR to single carriageway standard, with additional lanes at junctions. Removal of bus gate at the eastern end of Glenamuck Road East and the full reinstatement of the road back into the existing Golf Lane roundabout. Conversion of Glenamuck Road East to a bus gate only in both directions, resulting in significantly restricted access to/from the GLDR/Glenamuck East junction. No Cherrywood Link Road or upgraded Park access infrastructure Removal of the Link Road between Glenamuck Road East and the GDDR, with development lands between Glenamuck Road East and the GDDR accessed from the GDDR via Junction 7, which is designated a development driven access point. Internal road linkages (development driven) between development zones north of the GDDR and the Park development, including link to Ballyogan Road. Option 4 is proposed to be independent of the development of Cherrywood and future/potential upgrades of the existing Golf Lane Roundabout and Park access junctions. This option supports the development of the LAP independently of other proposed upgrades and developments, which may become necessary in time, eg, Cherrywood Development SDZ and the potential upgrades of the existing Golf Lane Roundabout and access to the Park development. Also, Option 4 excludes the proposed link road between Glenamuck Road East and the GLDR. The introduction of a bus only gate on Glenamuck Road East and the continuation of the full junction of Glenamuck Road East at Golf Lane Roundabout are measures which balance the need for this link road. Network Statistics The global network statistics for the Option 4 model run are summarised in Table 5.5, below. The total delay across the network is the sum of the transient queues, over-capacity queues and link delays which, for Option 4, is 857.4 PCU-hours; this represents a decrease of 18.6 PCU-Hours (2%), compared with the Option 2 and 3 networks. The results also outline a decrease in Total Travel Time, Travel Distance and Fuel Consumption, while Overall Average Speed increases slightly, compared to Options 2 and 3. Compared to Option network, Option 4 also represents a more efficient network, with queue statistics reduced and network efficiencies improved. Table 5.5 Network Statistics Option 4 Simulation Totals: This Time Period Next time Period Total Units Transient Queues 394.9 8.6 403.6 PCU-Hours Over-Capacity Queues 264.5 53.1 317.7 PCU-Hours Free Flow Time 1663.0 19.5 1682.4 PCU-Hours Link: Delays 134.6 1.5 136.1 PCU-Hours Cruise Time 1797.6 21.0 1818.6 PCU-Hours Total Travel Time 2457.1 82.8 2539.8 PCU-Hours Travel Distance 119701.7 1154.0 120855.7 PCU-kms Overall Average Speed 48.7 13.9 47.6 KPH Fuel Consumption 10283.8 163.5 10447.3 Litres MDT0598Rp0001 65 F01

Junction Delay Figure 5.35, below, illustrates the delay at each junction on the Option 4 network whereby a larger radius of red circle represents a greater delay. The level of blocking back is represented by the green lines. Figure 5.35 Junction Delays and Blocking Back on Option 4 Network Figure 5.35 indicates a minor delay at Junction 3 (Golf Lane Roundabout) represents a decrease compared to the same location at Option 3, albeit it with a different layout (roundabout vs. signalised junction) and with the Cherrywood Link Road removed. This is likely due to a combination of the removal of the Cherrywood Link Road in this option, coupled with the inclusion of the internal development driven link road through the development zones north of the GDDR and the Park development, which offers an alternative route option for traffic that had no option but to travel through this junction in previous option model runs. Elsewhere, the removal of the link road between Glenamuck Road East and the GDDR does not have as adverse an effect in the Option 4 model run MDT0598Rp0001 66 F01

as it did in the Option 3a network model run. This, again, may be attributable to the alternative route option available in the Option 4 network, which reduces the congestion at the Golf Lane roundabout. Figure 5.35 also indicates that blocking back is not evident on the Option 4 network. Volume / Capacity Ratio Figure 5.36, below, indicates the links on the Option 4 network that have capacity issues. The diagram illustrates the V/C ratio on each link and varies by intensity, whereby a solid line indicates a high V/C ratio, with decreasing levels of fill representing decreasing V/C ratios. Figure 5.36 - Option 3 Network V/C Ratios Figure 5.36 indicates that several key links on the Option 4 network have a high volume to capacity ratio, namely, the GDDR between Junctions 2 and 7 and the M50 off-slip at Carrickmines Interchange. This is comparable with the results for the Option 3 model run. MDT0598Rp0001 67 F01

Queue Length Diagrams Figures 5.37 to 5.42 illustrate the modelled layout and predicted average queue lengths at a number of key junctions in the LAP area. Figure 5.37 Option 4 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 1 - Enniskerry Road / GDDR Junction Figure 5.37 indicates that queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at the Enniskerry Road / GDDR junction in Option 4. This is consistent with the results of the Option 3 model run. MDT0598Rp0001 68 F01

Figure 5.38 Option 4 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 2 - GDDR / GLDR Junction Figure 5.38 indicates that there are no significant average queues predicted to occur at Junction 2 in the Option 4 model run. There is a predicted average queue of 7 PCUs for traffic moving straightthrough the junction from GDDR west to GDDR east, this is consistent with Option 3. While the predicted average queue for traffic turning right from the GLDR to GDDR is 5 PCUs and travelling straight-on from the GLDR to the development zones north of the GDDR is 2 PCUs. Both predicted queues represent an increase of 2 PCUs compared with the Option 3 model run. This additional queuing is likely due to the implementation of the bus gate at Junction 4 (GLDR / Glenamuck Road East junction), which prevents traffic travelling north along the GLDR from accessing Glenamuck Road East, as it would have done in Option 3 to access the (now removed) Link Road between Glenamuck Road East and the GDDR. The new internal link road that runs through the development lands north of the GDDR, through the Park development and connects to Ballyogan Road may also contribute to the additional queuing on the GLDR arm of Junction 2 as it gives traffic an alternative route to access both the park development and development zone 10951, which was previously only accessible via Junction 7 on the GDDR. MDT0598Rp0001 69 F01

Figure 5.39 Option 4 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 3 Golf Lane Roundabout Figure 5.39 indicates that queuing is not predicted to occur at Junction 3 in the Option 4 model run. This contrasts with the Option 3 model run where significant queuing was predicted to occur at this location, albeit, with a different layout (signalised junction). The reduction in queuing at this location is likely due to a number of factors including the removal of the Cherrywood Link Road in this Option run as well as the inclusion of alternative access points to the Park development via Junctions 2 and 7, the net result of which is a 44% reduction in the total volume of traffic entering the junction, compared to the Option 3 model run. MDT0598Rp0001 70 F01

Figure 5.40a Option 4 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 4a - GLDR / Glenamuck Road Junction Northern Stagger. Figure 5.40a shows the modelled layout of the northern stagger of the junction between the GLDR and Glenamuck Road East. While the junction will in fact be signalised, it has been modelled as a priority junction, since the traffic lights will only be activated by buses turning via the bus gate on the minor arm of the junction. To replicate the effect of the delays that the activation of the bus gate will cause to other traffic, additional intergreen time was added to the southern stagger of the junction (Junction 4b), as this is still modelled as a signalised junction. Figure 5.40a indicates that queuing is not predicted to occur at Junction 4a in the Option 4 model run. MDT0598Rp0001 71 F01

Figure 5.40b Option 4 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 4b - GLDR / Glenamuck Road Junction Southern Stagger Figure 5.40b indicates that significant queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at the southern stagger of junction 4 in Option 4. The relatively minor predicted average queue for traffic turning left from Glenamuck Road on to GLDR north is consistent with the predicted queue that was evident in the Option 3 model run, while the predicted queue length of 4 PCUs for vehicles travelling straight-through the junction from GLDR south to GLDR represents a decrease of 3 PCUs by comparison. MDT0598Rp0001 72 F01

Figure 5.41 Option 4 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 5 - GLDR / Ballycorus Road Junction Figure 5.41 indicates that, similar to the Option 3 model run, significant average queues and blocking back are not predicted to occur on any arm at Junction 5 in the Option 4 model run. MDT0598Rp0001 73 F01

Figure 5.42 Option 4 Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 6 - Park Development Access Junction Figure 5.42 indicates that queuing is not predicted to occur at Junction 6 in the Option 4 model run. This is an improvement on the Option 3 model run, which predicted an average queue of 4 PCUs for traffic turning right into the Park development from Glenamuck Road north and 7 PCUs for traffic travelling straight-through the junction from Glenamuck Road north to south, albeit with a different (signalised junction) layout. The reductions in queue lengths at this junction are likely due to the additional alternative access junctions to the Park development that are present in the Option 3 model run. MDT0598Rp0001 74 F01

5.2 HIGH TRAFFIC GROWTH SCENARIO Option 4 represents a satisfactory transportation infrastructure proposal which, based on the analysis for the Core Scenario, performs well and meets the transportation needs of the proposed Glenamuck LAP development. It also represents a scenario, which can be considered independent from adjacent developments which will become necessary in time but which will be implemented based on their own merits and are not dependent on the development of the Glenamuck LAP per se. Such developments include The Park and Cherrywood, which will generate their own transportation infrastructure needs. For the High Traffic Growth Scenario, only the emerging preferred Option from the Core Scenario model runs (Option 4) was tested. Results from the High Traffic Growth Scenario model run are presented below. Junction Delay Figure 5.43, below, illustrates the delay at each junction on the Option 4 network whereby a larger radius of red circle represents a greater delay. The level of blocking back is represented by the green lines. Figure 5.43 Junction Delays and Blocking Back on Option 4 Network High Traffic Growth Scenario MDT0598Rp0001 75 F01

Figure 5.43 indicates that the High Traffic Growth scenario is predicted to result in a slight increase in delay at the development junctions on the GDDR, compared to the Core Scenario Option 4 model run. Blocking back is not predicted to occur on the Option 4 network. The overall impact of the higher traffic growth in this scenario on the LAP appears to be quite minimal. Queue Length Diagrams Figures 5.44 5.49 illustrate the modelled layout and predicted average queue lengths at a number of key junctions in the LAP area. Figure 5.44 High Traffic Growth Scenario Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 1 - Enniskerry Road / GDDR Junction Figure 5.44 indicates that significant queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at Junction 1 under the High Traffic Growth Scenario. MDT0598Rp0001 76 F01

Figure 5.45 High Traffic Growth Scenario Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 2 - GDDR / GLDR Junction Figure 5.45 indicates that the predicted average queue for traffic travelling straight-through the junction from GDDR west to GDDR east is 8 PCUs. This represents a nominal increase compared to the Core Scenario. For traffic turning right from the GLDR to GDDR east, the predicted average queue is 56 PCUs. This is, again, a minor increase compared to the Core Scenario. As with the Core Scenario, blocking back is not predicted to occur at the junction. MDT0598Rp0001 77 F01

Figure 5.46 High Traffic Growth Scenario Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 3 Golf Lane Roundabout Figure 5.46 indicates that queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at Junction 3 in the High Traffic Growth model run. MDT0598Rp0001 78 F01

Figure 5.47a High Traffic Growth Scenario Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 4a - GLDR / Glenamuck Road Junction Northern Stagger Figure 5.47a shows the modelled layout of the northern stagger of the junction between the GLDR and Glenamuck Road East. As with the Core Scenario, the junction has been modelled as a priority junction, since the traffic lights will only be activated by buses turning via the bus gate on the minor arm of the junction. To replicate the effect of the delays that the activation of the bus gate will cause to other traffic, additional intergreen time was once again added to the southern stagger of the junction (Junction 4b), Figure 5.47a indicates that queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at the northern stagger of Junction 4 in the High Traffic Growth Scenario. MDT0598Rp0001 79 F01

Figure 5.47b High Traffic Growth Scenario Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 4b - GLDR / Glenamuck Road Junction Southern Stagger Figure 5.47b indicates that significant queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at the southern stagger of Junction 4 in the High Traffic Growth Scenario. This is consistent with the result of the Core Scenario Option 4 model run at this junction. MDT0598Rp0001 80 F01

Figure 5.48 High Traffic Growth Scenario Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 5 - GLDR / Ballycorus Road Junction Figure 5.48 indicates that, despite minor increases in average queue lengths compared to the Core Scenario model run, significant average queues and blocking back are not predicted to occur on any arm at Junction 5 in the High Growth Scenario. MDT0598Rp0001 81 F01

Figure 5.49 High Traffic Growth Scenario Modelled Layout & Predicted Queue Lengths at Junction 6 - Park Development Access Junction Figure 5.49 indicates that significant queuing and blocking back are not predicted to occur at this junction in the High Traffic Growth Scenario. MDT0598Rp0001 82 F01

5.3 SUMMARY Core Scenario For the Core Scenario, five options were tested. The Do Minimum (Option 0) network assumed development quanta as in the previous LAP, the implementation of the GDDR as previously published, No development of the Cherrywood Link Road, PT frequencies as in the previous NTA modelling work and the provision of bus lanes at key locations. The results of the Do Minimum model run indicated: Significant predicted delays at a number of junctions within the LAP area as well as in the vicinity of the Park development access junction. Significant capacity issues along the GLDR and in the vicinity of the Park development Significant levels of queuing and blocking back at a number of key locations in and around the LAP area, notably, the Enniskerry Road / GDDR, GDDR / GLDR, Golf Lane Roundabout at Carrickmines Interchange, GLDR / Glenamuck Road and Park development access junctions. The Option 1 network amended the Do Minimum network to include; revised development quanta (to reflect the updated Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Development Plan), an extension of the GLDR south to connect to Enniskerry Road and a staggered junction with the existing Glenamuck Road. The results of the Option 1 model run indicated: A significant reduction in the total overall network delay and an improvement in other overall network statistics such as fuel consumption, travel time and average speed when compared to the Do Minimum option A significant reduction in the predicted delay at all junctions within the LAP area A significant increase in the predicted delay, queuing and blocking back at the Park access development junction. The Option 2 network amended the Option 1 network to include the implementation of the Cherrywood Link Road and upgrade of the Golf Lane roundabout and The Park access junctions. The results of the Option 2 model run indicated A further reduction in the total overall network delay, compared with both the Do Minimum option and Option 1 as well as an improvement in other overall network statistics such as fuel consumption, travel time and average speed when compared to both the Do Minimum option and Option 1 A significant reduction in the predicted delay at the Park development access junction on Glenamuck Road No significant adverse impacts on junction delays, V/C ratios or queuing within the LAP area. MDT0598Rp0001 83 F01

The Option 3 network amended the layout of the GDDR, reducing it from dual carriageway to single carriageway. The results of the Option 3 model run indicated: Comparable network statistics to the Option 2 model run A slight increase in delays at a number of junctions within the LAP area. A sensitivity test of option 3 was undertaken whereby the link road between the GDDR and the Glenamuck Road was omitted but retaining a development driven access junction to serve adjacent development lands. The resultant impact on the network was a significant increase in delays and queuing at several junctions within the LAP area. The Option 4 network tested the ability of the LAP network to function independently of other proposed infrastructure upgrades in the vicinity of the LAP area, such as the Cherrywood Link Road and the Park Development access upgrade. It also included internal road linkages between the development zones north of the GDDR, the Park development and Ballyogan Road. Also, Option 4 excludes the proposed link road between Glenamuck Road East and the GLDR. The introduction of a bus only gate on Glenamuck Road East and the continuation of the full junction of Glenamuck Road East at Golf Lane Roundabout are measures which balance the need for this link road. The results of the Option 4 model run indicated: A reduction in total overall network delay, compared to the Option 3 model run, as well as a decrease in Total Travel Time, Travel Distance and Fuel Consumption. Overall Average Speed increased slightly, compared to Option 3. No significant adverse impacts on junction delays, V/C ratios or queuing within the LAP area. High Traffic Growth Scenario The High Traffic Growth Scenario assumed an increase in background traffic growth of 25% compared with the Core Scenario. For this scenario, only the emerging preferred option from the Core Scenario model runs (Option 4) was tested. The results of the Option 4 model run for the High Traffic Growth Scenario indicated: A minor increase in queuing at a number of junctions within the LAP area compared to the Core Scenario model run. MDT0598Rp0001 84 F01

5.4 SATURN MODEL RUNS CONCLUSION Core Scenario and Options Tested The conclusion of the SATURN analysis suggests that the proposed LAP networks in Options 1, 2 and 3 perform well in catering for the predicted development traffic generation in the future year core scenario, albeit with improvements to key junctions outside of the LAP Area, specifically, the upgrading of the existing Golf Lane Roundabout to a signalised junction that incorporates the Cherrywood Link Road and the upgraded access to the existing Park Development to signal control. Reduction of the GDDR to a single carriageway has little adverse impact on traffic flow and distribution provided that key junctions along its route do not have a reduction in their capacities. A sensitivity test of the Option 3 network, whereby the link road between the GDDR and the Glenamuck Road was reduced to a cul de sac on the GDDR side, was carried out. This omission resulted in considerable re-assignment of LAP generated traffic to the proposed network. This reassignment resulted in additional development traffic accessing key proposed junctions and resulted in a significant negative impact in terms of delays and queuing. Option 4 was developed in order to address issues identified from previous analyses, namely; Analysis to confirm if GDDR would function satisfactorily as a single carriageway between the proposed junctions Analysis of an alternative traffic management arrangement to balance the transportation benefits derived from the Link Road between the Glenamuck Road East and the GDDR by the introduction of a bus only gate on Glenamuck Road East and the retention of the full junction of Glenamuck Road East at Golf Lane Roundabout. Need for the Glenamuck LAP transportation provisions to be somewhat independent of other adjacent developments, ie the implementation of the LAP would not be contingent per se on future upgrades on local infrastructure outside of the plan area, eg The Park and Cherrywood in particular. Identification of provision for key bus priority measures to be included in the plan at this stage. Thus Option 4 was developed to consist of the following key elements. As Option 1 plus: Reduction of the GDDR and GLDR to single carriageway standard, with additional lanes at junctions. Removal of bus gate at the eastern end of Glenamuck Road East and the full reinstatement of the road back into the existing Golf Lane roundabout. Conversion of Glenamuck Road East to a bus gate only in both directions, resulting in significantly restricted access to/from the GLDR/Glenamuck East junction. No Cherrywood Link Road or upgraded Park access infrastructure Removal of the Link Road between Glenamuck Road East and the GDDR, with development lands between Glenamuck Road East and the GDDR accessed from the GDDR via Junction 7, which is designated a development driven access point. Internal road linkages (development driven) between development zones north of the GDDR and the Park development, including link to Ballyogan Road. The Option 4 network was shown to be able to cater for the predicted development traffic generation in the future year core scenario. The effect of the omission of the link road between the GDDR and the Glenamuck Road, which caused significant negative impacts on the Option 3 network, is mitigated in this Option by the additional route choice resulting from: MDT0598Rp0001 85 F01

the implementation of the bus gate at the northern stagger of the GLDR / Glenamuck Road junction, the removal of the bus gate at the eastern end of Glenamuck Road (at the Golf Lane Roundabout) and the inclusion in the network of the internal road linkages between the development zones north of the GDDR, the Park development and Ballyogan Road. The Option 4 model run demonstrated that the proposed transportation infrastructure and alternative traffic management proposals performed well in terms of the statistical performance of the network. The proposal presents reasonable infrastructure to support the development of the LAP lands relatively independently of other developments and on the basis that the proposals had reduced in overall scale and cost, it was concluded that this option represented a preferred option to be brought forward for further analysis in detail. High Traffic Growth Scenario The adverse impact of the higher rate of background traffic growth within the LAP area is limited on Option 4. This suggests that Option 4 proposed road network within the LAP area is robust and that the proposals have adequate reserve capacity to cater for a higher background traffic growth scenario. Detailed Analysis In Section 6 of this report, more detailed static analyses of the proposed key junctions within the LAP area are carried out to rigorously test the design provisions, typically number of entry and exit lanes to be provided, and determine the optimum junctions layouts. MDT0598Rp0001 86 F01

6 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 6.1 PREDICTED TRAFFIC FLOWS Future year peak hour traffic flows have been estimated using the outputs from the SATURN modelling exercise. As Option 4 is identified as the preferred option, the link flows and junction turning movements from this model run are used in the analysis of both the Core Scenario and the High Traffic Growth Scenarios. The predicted AM peak hour turning movements for the Option 4 network for the Core Scenario and High Traffic Growth Scenario are outlined below in Drawings TR003 and TR004, below, respectively. 6.2 PROPOSED ROAD NETWORK In order to meet the predicted traffic flows, a proposed road network has been developed using Mx road design package. Drawing JU-00 contained in Appendix A illustrates the proposed road layout to be tested in this analysis. This drawing illustrates the long term design requirements for the proposed transportation infrastructure without showing provisions for future development driven accesses or links. The designs required to facilitate access to particular developments will be developed by the proposed developers and will be designed to meet the particular development requirements. Such design proposals will be subject to planning and associated traffic impact assessments. Drawings TR003 and TR004 indicate the outline locations of proposed development led junctions, accesses and links. This design layout shown on Drawing JU-00 is significantly in excess of the infrastructure provisions that will enable the Glenamuck LAP development to commence. Chapter 8 discusses in more detail, the approach taken to the implementation strategy for the provision of the transportation infrastructure. For analysis purposes, it is the long term proposals that are subject to analysis in this section of the report. 6.3 LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS Although link capacity and level of service (LOS) is a critical element of road design, it is noted in urban situations, where roads are often highly trafficked, it is the junctions that ultimately determine the capacity of the road network, not the links. In this respect, junction capacity analysis is seen as the critical element of the road network analysis and is contained in Section 6.3. For completeness, however, the various link capacities are nonetheless examined below. Based on the DMRB, Volume 5, TA 79/99, Determination of Urban Road Capacity the capacity of the GDDR, GLDR and Glenamuck Road are estimated for the Option 4 network. From TA 79/99, the GDDR and GLDR are classed as Urban All-Purpose Road (UAP1). The maximum traffic flows (link capacity) which can be accommodated on a road (link) are expressed in vehicles per hour (one-way flow on a single lane) for an average carriageway width. The degree of saturation on the road (link) is calculated by using a ratio of flow on the road versus the capacity of the road (RFC value). This Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) is expressed as a percentage representing how saturated a link is. The peak RFC value for each link is shown below in Table 6.1. The link capacity analysis in Table 6.1 below is a theoretical exercise to illustrate the general capacity of the road network provided between the proposed junctions on the scheme. MDT0598Rp0001 87 F01

Table 6.1 Urban Link Capacity Analysis Link Capacity (one-way) Core Scenario Max. Oneway flow RFC (%) High Traffic Growth Scenario Max. Oneway flow GDDR (single - 7m carriageway) 1,440 802 56% 1032 72% GLDR (single - 7m carriageway) 1,440 986 69% 1018 71% Glenamuck Road West (single - 6.1m carriageway) Glenamuck Road East (single - 6.7m carriageway) RFC (%) 900 228 25% 203 23% 1,090 451 41% 450 41% The link capacity calculations indicate that the proposed road infrastructure will provide significant reserve capacity on the network in both the Core and High Traffic Growth Scenarios. It is noted that the maximum one-way flows are decreased by approximately 20% to 30% compared to the traffic flows analysed in 2006 for the Core Scenario. MDT0598Rp0001 88 F01